ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

26 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. arise. We have to keep in mind that it is the AO who initiated the penalty proceedings and directed the payment of penalty. He had not recorded any satisfaction during the course of survey. Decision to initiate penalty proceedings was taken while making assessment order. It is, thus, obvious that the expression

DWARKA GEMS LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

26-03-2013 issued\nu/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, thus the notice so issued is\nvoid ab initio and consequently penalty order so passed\ndeserves to be deleted.\n3.\nOn the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO\nin levying

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

26 Shri Ghanshyam Tak, Ajmer. (b) a sum computed at the rate of sixty per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if it is not covered under the provisions of clause (a).] (2) No penalty under the provisions of 53[section 270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee himself declared additional income in the ROI filed u/s 153A of the Act and the assessee has duly understood as to what was Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. the purport and import of the notice and furnished his reply before AO on the charge of concealment of income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee himself declared additional income in the ROI filed u/s 153A of the Act and the assessee has duly understood as to what was Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. the purport and import of the notice and furnished his reply before AO on the charge of concealment of income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee himself declared additional income in the ROI filed u/s 153A of the Act and the assessee has duly understood as to what was Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. the purport and import of the notice and furnished his reply before AO on the charge of concealment of income

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

26. It was submitted that the deeming fiction under Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked since the conditions precedent for invoking Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) do not exist and that lack of due diligence in determining the ALP is neither indicated nor inferred by the Ld. AO, thus levying penalty

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

26. It was submitted that the deeming fiction under Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked since the conditions precedent for invoking Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) do not exist and that lack of due diligence in determining the ALP is neither indicated nor inferred by the Ld. AO, thus levying penalty

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by invoking Explanation 5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect of cash found in previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08, merely on presumption that assessee might have been in possession of cash throughout period covered by search assessments - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] Words and Phrases : Word

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

26,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 On appeal against the penalty proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty dismissing the appeal of the assessee stating that the assessee failed to comply to various notices issued by NFAC, whereas none of the notices was ever served on the assessee Brief facts of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

26 (Punj. & Har.) 24. It was further submitted that the order passed u/s 143(3) r/w section 153A does not specify under which limb the penalty is initiated. Nor does notice u/s 274 do so. It was submitted that for levy of penalty u/s 271

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the other mandatory conditions of section 271AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

26,677/- under clause 1(a) of that section Smt. Aparna Agarwal, Kota. despite the fact that manner of earning of undisclosed income was not disclosed by the assessee. 2. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares which has resulted Long Term Capital Gains are duly recorded

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(l)(c) do not exist as such he is not liable to pay penalty. The Hon'ble High Court went on to hold that: 'Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.... But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

26,176/- 10 1175/JP/2025 2020-21 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an 3 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. amount of Rs. 6,52,43,524/- 11 1176/JP/2025 2020-21 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

26,176/- 10 1175/JP/2025 2020-21 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an 3 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. amount of Rs. 6,52,43,524/- 11 1176/JP/2025 2020-21 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount